Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judge: MURPHY J
• Judgment Date: 10 October 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] FCA 1662
• Court: Federal Court
• Date: 10 October 2019

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pinnacle Runway Pty Ltd v Triangl Limited [2019] FCA 1662

File number:	VID 794 of 2016
Judge:	MURPHY J
Date of judgment:	10 October 2019
Catchwords:	TRADE MARKS – whether the second respondent infringed the applicant’s trade mark pursuant to s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether the mark was used to distinguish its goods from the goods of other traders. ; TRADE MARKS – cross-claim for cancellation of a trade mark pursuant to s 88 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – whether cross-respondent was the first to use the trade mark in Australia in relation to the goods for which that mark is registered – whether marks which were used earlier than the priority date are identical or substantially identical to registered trade mark – whether substantial identity between two marks where multiple differences exist – whether a total impression of similarity emerges from a comparison between the two marks. ; EVIDENCE – hearsay evidence – whether screenshots of webpages advertising women’s fashion apparel and swimwear for sale under particular style names and at specified prices constitute business records under s 69 of the Evidence Act1995 (Cth) – finding that such evidence does fall within the business records exception – consideration of evidence that the “Wayback Machine” automatically archives and retrieves webpages, without relevant human intervention – whether screenshots of archived webpages obtained using the Wayback Machine constitute hearsay under s 59 of the Evidence Act – whether such evidence should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act or their use limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act. ; DAMAGES – claim for damages for lost sales – whether claim for damages for diminution of reputation established – whether conduct of the respondent is such as to justify an award of additional damages under s 126(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).
Legislation:	Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 56; (2017) 345 ALR 205 Accor Australia & New Zealand Hospitality Pty Ltd v Liv Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 554; (2015) 112 IPR 494 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar, Narodni Podnik & Ors [2002] FCA 390; (2002) 56 IPR 182 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Limited (No 5)[2012] FCA 1479; (2012) 301 ALR 352 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Meriton Property Services Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 1305; (2017) 350 ALR 494 Beecham Group plc v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 838; (2005) 66 IPR 254 Bohemia Crystal Pty Ltd v Host Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 235; (2018) 354 ALR 353 Carnival Cruise Lines Inc v Sitmar Cruises Ltd [1994] FCA 68; (1994) 120 ALR 495 Conde Nast Publications Pty Ltd v Taylor[1998] FCA 864; (1998) 41 IPR 505 Dyno Nobel Inc v Orica Explosives Technology Pty Ltd (No 2)[2019] FCA 1552 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan (Aust) Pty Ltd[2010] HCA 15; (2010) 241 CLR 144 E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 934; (2008) 77 IPR 69 Facton Ltd v Rifai Fashions Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 9; (2012) 199 FCR 569 Flags 2000 Pty Ltd v Smith[2003] FCA 1067; (2003) 59 IPR 191 Futuretronics.com.au Pty Ltd v Graphix Labels Pty Ltd (No 2)[2008] FCA 746; (2008) 76 IPR 763 GM Holden Ltd v Paine[2011] FCA 569; (2011) 281 ALR 406 Hansen Beverage Company v Bickfords (Australia) Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 406; (2008) 75 IPR 505 Johnson & Johnson Australia Pty Ltd v Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 402; (1991) 30 FCR 326 Leybourne v Permanent Custodians Limited [2010] NSWCA 78 Lomas v Winton Shire Council[2002] FCAFC 413; (2003) AIPC 91-839 McMahon v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 216 Microsoft Corp v Goodview Electronics Pty Ltd[2000] FCA 1852; (2000) 49 IPR 578 National Telecoms Group Ltd v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] NSWSC 455 PB Foods v Malanda Dairyfoods Ltd[1999] FCA 1602; (1999) 47 IPR 47 PepsiCo Australia Pty Ltd v Kettle Chip Co Pty Ltd [1996] FCA 48; (1996) 135 ALR 192 Pham Global Pty Ltd v Insight Clinical Imaging Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 83; (2017) 251 FCR 379 Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art & Craft Manufactory Ltd (No.2) [2016] FCA 478; (2016) 118 IPR 514 Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd[2008] FCA 74; (2008) 166 FCR 358 Roach v Page (No 15) [2003] NSWSC 939 Roach v Page (No 27) [2003] NSWSC 1046 Rodney Jane Racing Pty Ltd v Monster Energy Company [2019] FCA 923; (2019) 42 IPR 275 Shape Shopfitters Pty Ltd v Shape Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCA 474 Shell Co (Aust) Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd[1963] HCA 66; (1963) 109 CLR 407 Truong Giang Corporation v Tung Mau Quach and Ors [2015] FCA 1097; (2015) 114 IPR 498 Voxson Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited (No 10) [2018] FCA 376; (2018) 134 IPR 99
Date of hearing:	22-24 October 2018
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Intellectual Property
Sub-area:	Trade Marks
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	298
Counsel for the Applicant/Cross-Respondent:	Mr S Stuckey QC and Mr A Sykes
Solicitor for the Applicant/Cross-Respondent:	Actuate Legal
Counsel for the Respondents/Cross-Claimant:	Mr N Murray SC and Ms F St John
Solicitor for the Respondents/Cross-Claimant:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

ORDERS

		VID 794 of 2016
BETWEEN:	PINNACLE RUNWAY PTY LTD Applicant
AND:	TRIANGL LIMITED First Respondent ; TRIANGL GROUP LIMITED Second Respondent
AND BETWEEN:	TRIANGL GROUP LIMITED Cross-Claimant
AND:	PINNACLE RUNWAY PTY LTD Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:	MURPHY J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 October 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The cross-claim be dismissed.

3. The parties file and serve submissions on the question of costs within 21 days, and file and serve any...